@johncarlosbaez@mathstodon.xyz
@johncarlosbaez@mathstodon.xyz avatar

johncarlosbaez

@johncarlosbaez@mathstodon.xyz

I'm a mathematical physicist who likes explaining stuff. Sometimes I work at the Topos Institute. Check out my blog! I'm also a member of the n-Category Café, a group blog on math with an emphasis on category theory. I also have a YouTube channel, full of talks about math, physics and the future.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

johncarlosbaez, (edited ) to random
@johncarlosbaez@mathstodon.xyz avatar

Robert Recorde introduced the equal sign in 1557. He used parallel lines because "no two things can be more equal". And his equal sign was hilariously looooooong.

This is from @mjd's excellent blog article:

https://blog.plover.com/math/recorde.html

and I recommend following him here on Mastodon.

It's fun to fight your way through Recorde's text, with its old font and spellings. But if you give up, @mjd has transliterated it:

Howbeit, for easie alteration of equations. I will propounde a fewe exanples, bicause the extraction of their rootes, maie the more aptly bee wroughte. And to avoide the tediouse repetition of these woordes "is equalle to" I will sette as I doe often in woorke use, a pair of paralleles, or Gemowe lines of one lengthe, thus: =====, bicause noe 2 thynges, can be moare equalle.

The only real mystery here is "Gemowe", which means "identical" and comes from the same root as "Gemini": twins.

In the same book Robert Recorde introduced the mathematical term "zenzizenzizenzike", but I'm afraid for that you'll have to read @mjd's article!

mjd, to random
@mjd@mathstodon.xyz avatar

This is the world's first use of the modern equals sign, from Robert Recorde's 1557 book The Whetstone of Witte.

(Screencap from Internet Archive's scan of the book: https://archive.org/details/TheWhetstoneOfWitte/page/n237/mode/2up)

(I also wrote a blog post a couple of years back explaining what it says if you are interested: https://blog.plover.com/math/recorde.html)

johncarlosbaez,
@johncarlosbaez@mathstodon.xyz avatar

@mjd - that's a looooooong equals sign.

johncarlosbaez,
@johncarlosbaez@mathstodon.xyz avatar

@loke - the longer the lines, the more equal the two things are.

@mjd's blog explains the word "Gemowe".

highergeometer, to random
@highergeometer@mathstodon.xyz avatar

Two thematically related papers

Felix Cherubini, Thierry Coquand, Matthias Hutzler, David Wärn, "Projective Space in Synthetic Algebraic Geometry"

Abstract: Working in an abstract, homotopy type theory based axiomatization of the higher Zariski-topos called synthetic algebraic geometry, we show that the Picard group of projective n-space is the integers, the automorphism group of projective n-space is PGL(n+1) and morphisms between projective standard spaces are given by homogenous polynomials in the usual way.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.13916

=====

Matías Menni, "Bi-directional models of `Radically Synthetic' Differential Geometry", Theory and Applications of Categories, Vol. 40, 2024, No. 15, pp 413-429.

Abstract: The radically synthetic foundation for smooth geometry formulated in [Law11] postulates a space T with the property that it has a unique point and, out of the monoid T^T of endomorphisms, it extracts a submonoid R which, in many cases, is the (commutative) multiplication of a rig structure. The rig R is said to be bi-directional if its subobject of invertible elements has two connected components. In this case, R may be equipped with a pre-order compatible with the rig structure. We adjust the construction of `well-adapted' models of Synthetic Differential Geometry in order to build the first pre-cohesive toposes with a bi-directional R. We also show that, in one of these pre-cohesive variants, the pre-order on R, derived radically synthetically from bi-directionality, coincides with that defined in the original model.
http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/volumes/40/15/40-15abs.html

johncarlosbaez,
@johncarlosbaez@mathstodon.xyz avatar

@highergeometer wrote: "Yeah, but you have to see the definition of this synthetic projective space as a type to realise it's not immediate. And the automorphism group consists of endomorphisms of the synthetic projective space as a type, not via some explicit construction."

Showing you can still prove things in a formalism that makes them less obvious doesn't count as an advertisement for the formalism to me - it's mostly interesting to people already committed to the formalism. I was hoping that with some tweak one could consider the projective space of a "homotopy vector space", or something like that. (The main kind of "homotopy vector space" I know is a simplicial object in Vect, aka chain complex of vector spaces, but there should be more interesting ones that are spectra. I don't however know if the projective space still makes sense.)

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • megavids
  • tacticalgear
  • magazineikmin
  • cubers
  • everett
  • rosin
  • Youngstown
  • ngwrru68w68
  • slotface
  • osvaldo12
  • Durango
  • kavyap
  • InstantRegret
  • DreamBathrooms
  • JUstTest
  • khanakhh
  • GTA5RPClips
  • normalnudes
  • thenastyranch
  • mdbf
  • ethstaker
  • modclub
  • Leos
  • tester
  • provamag3
  • cisconetworking
  • anitta
  • lostlight
  • All magazines